P Bernad wrote:
>
> I am not really an expert, but what I'd suggest in the case of b&w film is
> to overexpose and underdevelop the film. And use the developer as diluted
> as possible.
Over exposure in the camera plus shortened negative development [called
pull processing] time gives lower than normal negative contrast but
normal [or very near normal] negative density. The developer should be
used at normal concentration.
John Hudson
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, John Hudson wrote:
>
> > Ray Moth wrote:
> > >
> > > John Lind wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe it's much easier to reduce the contrast of a lens than
> > > increase it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't a ND filter
> > > also reduce contrast in addition to the light reduction (one could use
> > > a polarizer for this too)? Soft focus, fog, or diffusion filters
> > > typically reduce contrast, but they also reduce resolution.
> > > =======================================================================
> > > I agree, there are many ways to reduce contrast. To me, the ND filter
> > > approach makes sense, because the less light there is the lower the
> > > contrast. In a totally dark room, everything looks black, whatever its
> > > colour or shade. There is no contrast. If the light level is increased,
> > > light coloured objects brighten while dark objects are still dark, i.e.
> > > contrast is also increased. Use of an ND filter (or polarizer) will
> > > simulate the effect of a dark room, reducing contrast.
> >
> > To me this is not logical. Contrast is a consequence of the light,
> > whether natural or otherwise or a combination of both, prevailing in and
> > about the scene that is to be photographed. An ND filter serves to
> > lengthen the time it takes for that light to register on the film but
> > does not in and of itself affect the quality of the light in question.
> > Use of the filter necessitates a slower shutter speed and / or a larger
> > aperture but other than that the quality of the light is not affected by
> > the ND filter. All the filter does is to extend the time it takes for a
> > given volume of light to register on the film as compared to the time it
> > would otherwise have taken without the filter in place. If these
> > assumptions of mine are correct, how might an ND filter affect contrast?
> > As the name implies does not an ND filter just serve to slow the rate at
> > which the prevailing light passes through the camera's lens system?
> >
> > > Another way to achieve low contrast could be to under-expose negative
> > > film, thereby depleting the emulsion. The overall brightness can be
> > > corrected in the printing stage but contrast will be lower.
> >
> > Doesn't under exposure in the camera coupled with normal film
> > development result in near normal negative contrast but lower negative
> > density? Extended film development would result in higher negative
> > contrast and near normal negative density. Lower negative contrast and
> > very low negative density would result from underexposure in the camera
> > coupled with shortened film development.
> >
> > jh
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> >
> >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|